The MLS Calendar: Hot Or Cold?

You're probably already up on the saga of Major League Soccer's potential calendar swap that picked up speed on Thursday morning last week only to come to a screeching halt by late Thursday afternoon.

The upshot is that, as SBJ reported, MLS could have voted on switching from the current late winter-to-super late fall calendar it's on now^[1] to the late summer-to-late spring schedule followed by most of the notable European soccer competitions.

I'm definitely interested in talking about the wisdom of making such a switch, but it appears we'll have some time to mull it over as MLS works out whether it makes sense.

That's because late Thursday word got out that the owners decided not to move on a calendar switch, at least for now. The news hit the MLS ecosphere in a couple of different ways and it's those reactions in a general sense that inspired this edition of the Soccer Eagle newsletter.

Here's what commissioner Don Garber said after the Board of Governors decided to table to issue as reported by Paul Tenorio at The Athletic.

“We clearly have work to do to figure out whether or not we can move over the international calendar, and we’re not there yet,” Garber said a few minutes after the meeting adjourned. “No decision has been made, and frankly, sitting here today, I’m not sure whether or not we have all the support we need to be able to achieve that. Though there’s momentum to try to get that done, there’s a lot of things that need to happen. We’ve got to figure out the commercial impact. We’ve got to get closer to researching our players to get a sense as to what their point of view is. We’ve got facility issues to look at. So my view is, if we can get this done, we’ll fully be able to capitalize on the momentum of the World Cup, and I’m not remotely concerned about it.”

Garber's use of "international calendar" is a little annoying since it's not really that, but I supppose we have to use something as shorthand. "European calendar" isn't really good, either. "Summer-offseason calendar"? Whatever.

First, if there's not enough support among the owners the whole thing is a non-starter. This is their business and if they don't believe it makes bottom-line sense to try and straddle the worst of the North American winter, so be it. I'd rather have an operating league that plays in the "wrong" window, as it has for nearly 30 years, than a non-operating league that died of a self-inflicted wound born of some artificial desire to "do something".

It seems silly to me, as a fan, to get worked up over the issue as if not switching the calendar will somehow drain the league of its value as a soccer competition. I liked the league before this issue hit the agenda and I'll like it whether or not it ever happens.

What I mean is, if no one at the league ever mentioned the possibility (or if no reporter got word that it was being discussed internally), the vast majority of soccer fans would have just gone along as usual. It's only in the face of the small possibility of the swap becoming real that it now feels like something's been robbed from us. There's some Streisand Efffect magic happening here.

For me, all of this is part-and-parcel of a special kind of boosterism that runs through American soccer.

And that's what I wanted to expound on. On my daily video post for The Best Soccer Show Patreon on Friday^[2], I talked out a theory about how the divide between pro-calendar switch and anti-calendar switch might be explained.

In a very general sense and with very fuzzy lines, I think the calendar issues is being parsed different ways by groups I'll call "boosters" on one side and "ardent fans" on the other.

"Ardent fan" is self-explanatory. I see these people as club-focused MLS consumers who view their interaction with the league through the lens of their club and their experienced fandom thereof. These are people who have spent thousands of dollars on tickets, gear, and stadium fare over many years and reject the idea that MLS should shift the calendar and upend the rhythms of what it means to support a team.

If you're someone who literally plans their year around the MLS schedule, any changed to that schedule is an attack on your way of life.

It's worth mentioning that since these are die hards who are already committed and whose fandom contitutes a core part of their identities, change is unnecesary to push them forward. They're bought in. Switching the calendar can only put stress on their relationship with the league, not get them excited for the next phase of Major League Soccer's growth. The baseline is different.

For the booster, the next phase of MLS growth is everything. The league standing still on any issue—the calendar is just one, but obviously player salaries and the mechanisms that govern them are the usual talking points—is infuriating. In the worldview of the booster, MLS is the club avatar of American soccer in the battle for global respect. It's not just wanting MLS to be good for the sake of being good, it's wanting MLS to validate the time, energy, and emotional currency we've spent on our version of a sport. MLS owes the booster something, namely "ambition".

I probably don't have to mention that little brother syndrome is a major part of American soccer boosterism.

Here's where I wave at all my British friends. Cheerio chaps! Cracking match in the Prem today! Centre-half. Lift. Lorry. Fish and chips.

We want MLS to be good because it's exhausting to be connected to a league (if only by common origin) that doesn't measure up to the top leagues around of Europe. We're Americans. We don't know how to swallow hard and accept being second best. Anything less that the top spot is a failure and we internalize that feeling in ways that aren't particularly constructive.

A slight variation on this theme is the booster who wants MLS to ascend to globally respected heights because that seems a necessary ingredient for a USMNT triumph in the World Cup. Front-of-mind or not, it's not crazy to think that if MLS can launch itself into the top end of world domestic leagues, we'll have enough world class American players to build a world champion (and sooner rather than later, por favor).

It's actually very difficult to imagine the USMNT winning a World Cup without MLS growing into a top domestic soccer competition. We're not Argentina, afterall.

Look, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. I'm a booster.

Because of that I feel the pull of demanding more when it comes to Major League Soccer. I'm not even sure if I rationally believe that a switch to a Western European-style calendar^[3] is a good idea and I'm extremely sympathetic to clubs (and their fans) from nothern climes who are not enthused by the idea of either forcing games into winter windows (brrrr) and/or long road trips that could tilt the competitive balance against them.

Sure, the more southern outfits might have their own travails going north during the warmer months, but it's makes me tired to even ponder the debates we'd have over a schedule that had to work out how to make that feel fair.

Wait. I just checked Montreal's schedule. As I write this sentence, a club that has already fired a manager in 2025 is only just preparing for its first home game of the year.

Forget the fairness factor. Seven matches on the road to start the season is bullshit. Je m'excuse, l'Impact.

It should be obvious that most of the media fall into the "booster" group. Cynicism runs deep when you cover the sport in the United States (maybe we'll talk about why at a later date), but the flip side of that cynicism is a desire to see the people in charge make decisions that at least have the appearance of pushing the sport forward. There's a normalizing effect that sets in with the kind of baby-steps-approach the league has largely taken over 30 years. Anything but a grand gesture feels small.

"Go big or go home" applies to how a lot of people who cover soccer in America view the way MLS operates—and it's not always a feeling they're consciously aware of.

Let's be honest: When you cover MLS as part of your livelihood, you're constantly fighting an insinct to defend it. A healthy media includes those who can both curry sources to report on what's happening internally and criticize it when necessary. I don't think I need to tell you that in the current media environment (sports or otherwise), that's a very difficult balance to strike.

I don't want to overstate the importance of this moment. MLS is going to continue whether or not it changes the calendar and aligns with at least some of the league with which it wants to do business. The real question, one no one has the answer to, is whether a calendar switch could launch the league to the next level and help it skip a few of the steps it might have to take if it continues on its current path.

Should they do it? In my opinion, sure. At this point, I'm for anything that makes soccer in American stand out. A calendar switch that puts the most important games of the season outside of American soccer's shadow has to be on the table. Summer sucks because it's too damn hot (and getting hotter) and no one likes the infernal bullshit that is MLS considering what kind of break to take for a tournament that will undeniably steal attention from the league.

Thanks for reading. Tell a friend about Soccer Eagle and consider clicking all of the links on my link tree.